A Customer Complaint made to a reputed taxi service in Mumbai was:
1/ The taxi booked was not found until few minutes after the appointed time. So the driver was called (by customer) to find out his 'whereabouts'.
Taxi was found to be parked away on road. The driver refused to go to customer's colony when requested. He threatened to go away if the customer did not go where the taxi was parked.
2/ Nor had he informed his arrival although he said that he had. In fact, customer called him up a few minutes after 'no-show'. Attached screen-shot of the customer's cell shows 'outgoing' to driver's number but not incoming from his number.
3/ On telephone as well as in person, when the driver was asked 'why he did not come inside the colony' he arrogantly replied: "Our Taxi-Service-Provider gives too much importance to Customer. (In his vernacular language: "Ye Taxi-Service-waleney Customer ko aisa, implying 'chadhake', banaya hai''...and so on).
Supplier's response after over a week of registering the complaint was:
"Please accept my sincere apologies for the inconvenience caused to you."
Where does the above real-life practice fit into business principles?
How should, a service provider wanting to stay and flourish in business, look at a typical customer complaint?
The above transaction is a typical case-study of INDIFFERENCE that should be avoided at all the touch-points with all stakeholders especially with customers by both the front-liners as well as the rear-end officers. (Reference 'world of Kaizen' book).
What is a customer's rightful 'expect'ation after a typical complaint (that hardly 4% of the dissatisfied customers choose to make):
1/ First of all the first-aid so that s/he gets quick relief. (In addition, apology is anyway expected but it's of no use without the First-aid.)
2/ Right to know specific details of what exact action was taken to prevent the situation from occurring in future.
How does a typical supplier respond. What INDIFFERENCE do most suppliers engage into:
1/ First of all they deny the complaint then they defend.
2/ They express dry apology without taking preventive action. Such an apology is like rubbing the wound. (The taxi service in above case fell in this category.)
3/ They don't keep customer informed about specific details of what exact action (if at all) was taken to prevent the situation.
4/ They expect customers to forget service-errors s/he had faced during the year in lieu of a yearly-gift-packet and/or sweets. While the gift 'dry-of-emotions' reinforces their vow to quit, most customers shamelessly accept it in exchange of an unexpressed abuse (to the supplier).
Funnily, a typical supplier doesn't mind recruiting a well-paid customer-care officer who is well-trained in handling an errate customer, and further training him in writing flowery letters so that 'issues' are taken 'care' of.
Result: Customer continues the service provider only until s/he finds another option so that s/he can QUIT. Meanwhile, s/he plays the role of a devil-publicity-officer 'bad-mouth'ing the supplier's services among not less than a dozen prospective customers.
As someone says, it takes 10 times more money and efforts to acquire a new customer.
Isn't it wiser instead to invest this money in training associates on what the customer 'expects' rather than spending wastefully on reactively 'managing' the effects of indifference.
Should a customer bother about such 'small' issues?:
If s/he wants a change in such careless attitude, then yes!
S/he must play her small-bit-a-role though. Else, s/he should not blame suppliers for shoddy quality of service. S/he must help to get service-error out of the system which otherwise anyway will keep popping up above the carpet exactly when unwanted.
If and when it eventually does pop-up then the corresponding customer got what s/he deserved. Also s/he makes herself deserving to what s/he will get in future.
